With the number of homophobic attacks rising in the Dutch metropolis, Amsterdam officials are commissioning a study to determine why Moroccan men are targeting the city's gays.

Sorry homey - do you really need to think about that ?

When it gets to the Human Rights Commission who wins as the oppressed minority? And how is this the fault of the Americans?

Stephen:

My guess is the ones who are more likely to turn to violence if they don't get what they want. I'll let you figure out who that is. But I'll say, personally I never felt in much danger walking near Beaudry metro station in Montreal.

Indeed, walking down Church St. in Toronto, there is no sense of menace or unpleasantness.

All it takes is a single female human clad in a Darth Vader outfit, eyes showing only, shuffling along behind her white-clad bearded unsmiling husband to darken the mood in any Home Depot or Canadian Tire.

I'll take Gay Pride over Islamic Jidad any time.

Those in glass mosques.

I wonder when somebody will bring these examples of inciting hatred and murder to the HRC:

Ishaq:364 "Muslims, take not Jews and Christians as friends. Whoever protects them becomes one of them, they become diseased, and will earn a similar fate."

Bukhari:V1B1N6 "Just issue orders to kill every Jew in the country."

Not to mention the monkeys and pigs thing. As well as hundreds of other verses commanding the death of all non-Muslims in perpetuity, or until the whole world is allah's. And please, don't anybody come along and claim 'out-of-context.' The Quran has no context, other than what's provided by the Sira and Hadith.

Mo and his followers were and are equal opportunity haters, though:

[Qur'an 9:61] "Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, 'If a black man comes to you, his heart is more gross than a donkey's.'"

Bukhari:V9B89N256 "Allah's Apostle said, 'You should listen to and obey your ruler even if he is a black African slave whose head looks like a raisin.'"

I guess that's why even the Muslim abeed (black and slave means the same thing in Arabic/Islam) are being systematically wiped out in Sudan.

Hmm... doesn't Morocco have a whole lot of Muslims? And doesn't the Koran say nasty stuff about homosexuality?

Really, it should be a no-brainer. Of course, I'm sure, however, that not everyone in Morocco is Muslim and that not all Moroccans in Amsterdam who are bashing the homosexuals are Muslims...

But then again, talking about the violent homophobia inherent in Islam is taboo, politically incorrect... shee-it, even the homosexuals themselves are too terrified to speak out against the violent homophobic Islamofascists they know are out there, for fear of retaliation, not that they necessarily need to do anything to provoke violence...

You know, I think we're now beginning to witness the results of bottled-up radical Islamic cleric-instigated homophobic hatred being released via a popped cork...

Interesting to see how long the MSM will be able to cover up this emergent violence between their two most-favored "minority groups"...

Now, there's an idea:

Let's take the Canadian Islamic Congress to the Human Rights Commission, charged with "flagrant infidel-aphobia.

Mayor Job Cohen commissioned the University of Amsterdam to conduct a study on the motives behind the hate crimes.

No offense, but he has got to be the dumbest Jew on the face of the earth. Whoo hoo, Job, check a Koran out of the library.

How dare they practice hatred against gays! That's our job, right guys???...right?

/snark

This is really rich. Conservatives: friends of the gay community, and protectors of gay rights worldwide.

Biggest news networks I know of are Fox and CNN.

I am not aware that they are owned by Jews.

If there are Jews in the new business or any business for that matter it is because historically non Jew wouldn't hire them to do regular jobs.

In Ontario when Italians were coming over by the boat load, they weren't being hired either, so they started building stuff and laying bricks ... now they own pretty much the entire construction industry in Central Canada.

Jews excel now at everything they do because they got tough love from the entire planet. Perhaps if dole that kind of love out to Natives they might wind up controlling something other than the prisons so many of them are doing time in. Same for all trough suckers.

Got that?

Who rang the idiot bell?

Oh, oh, here comes the idiot, self-appointed, moral and cultural equivalency commission again.

Who support Muslim attrocities, over Universal Human Rights.

rick_s. Stick around,you might actually find out that the stereotypes that you believe are actually just that. Conservatives are not knuckl-dragging neo-nazis,or politically correct posers.

Steyn has it right: these types of attacks do not bode well for gays and other non-Islamic-supported minorities given the continuing Islamification of Europe. If classical-liberal secular democracy is to survive in Europe, the non-Muslim residents need to rise up en masse and demand change in government policies surrounding immigration in particular.

What is more, there has to be demonstrable penalties for any such crimes committed in the name of one's faith, regardless of the banner under which is it committed. The Muslim immigrant in this case should be slammed in prison for a couple years then afterwards deported directly to his country of origin? No stopping over in the 'hood to have a ritual car burning or anything; just straight from the clink to the airport and au revoir.

But what if he could be persecuted in his former country?, you ask. Too bad; he should have thought about that before bashing some gay's jaw on the curb.

I would not be so sure Rick.

In a previous posting, SDA, linked to the rules and scoring in progressive victimhood. In this progressive game , a Muslim's importance outranks a homosexual be three points. :)

http://dicklist.blogspot.com/2006/07/
tdl-gaming-world-series-of-victimhood.html

Therefore, it will probably fall upon conservatives, who value the rule of law, to protect the rights of gays and women. To progressives, the law is of secondary importance to more the pressing need for adherence to politically correct thought and action. Besides, Muslims radicals have the progressives scared silly. Which is why left leaning politicians, artists, academia and the MSM censor themselves to avoid any "misunderstanding" .

Progressives focus on the objective of the day, conservatives fall back on the proven processes...i.e. rule of law. or avoidance of proven bad processes...communism, theocracy etc

Look forward to the HRC trying to decide which victim group is worse off. Somehow I as a europenan male will be at fault....guess I better start saving for the inevitable compensation settlement.

Lori....excellent comment at 7:03 good chuckle

Neither do Cuban fags "exist" or Chinese fags or Ruski Fags, or North Korean fags or Venezuelian fags or ...well you see the pattern...probably all deeply closeted and in the army and administration ;-)

A tad off topic, but please go to the following site and vote no.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

The question is 'Do you agree that global warming is "an emergency unlike anything humankind has ever faced before?

WL Mackenzie Redux - you've got that right. Here's who isn't seeing the pattern that we here see, most North American and European gays.

Amusing isn't it that conservatives are more enraged at the treatment of women and gays under Islam than the organizations that allegedly represent them here.

Someone tell CAIR and company,including CBC, that if Jews controlled the media the Western Standard would not be facing an inquiry.

Wait...that's too obvious.

rick_s

"This is really rich. Conservatives: friends of the gay community, and protectors of gay rights worldwide."

Sounds like you would fit in perfectly with the musies, eh?, no muslim gays, no gay conservatives? You really are a fart in the wind arn't you?

rick_s is just another standard issue hater. Doesn't have a clue who Conservatives are or what they stand for, he's been told to hate 'em so he does.

Kinda like Muslim extremists hate joooos and gays and women and Christians and pretty much everybody.

I see you, ricky.

Hey, rick_s, your lefty friends of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, a great show mind you, aren't going to do in your basic homicidal spittle spewing Islamofascist gay stoner. Trust us, if you had followed our posts over time you would have found we haven't deviated from defending gays against Islam. News to you, pretty ordinary to us.

A years worth of posts at least here on the failures of the feminists to defend Muslim women subject to horrific abuses, no comment(scroll down) by them on the poor Brit teacher whose death is demanded, I guess you missed all of that. Too bad.

But, you had your little useless drive-by to make you feel virtucratic and good.

Stupid and ill-informed, we'll let pass on your first foray here.

How dare they practice hatred against gays! That's our job, right guys???...right?

/snark

This is really rich. Conservatives: friends of the gay community, and protectors of gay rights worldwide.

/snark indeed..it is often left to conservatives to actually practice what leftists preach when it comes to enforcing human rights...

I may not care for the gay lifestyle, but i have served my country and western democracy so that you may do whatever you wish (perhaps even sodomize cats..who knows?) with no real fear of someone cutting your head off, or your penis, and then boiling and serving it to you as i witnessed in Eritrea.

I would say that conservatives are better able to put our collectively held western values to work because we don't hate ourselves, or fear and loathe what we are..

"....Amsterdam officials are commissioning a study to determine why Moroccan men are targeting the city's gays."

Oh great, conduct a study while Moroccan men continue to target gays.....I'd say the Amsterdam officials don't sound too worried or care too much.

With the number of homophobic attacks rising in the Dutch metropolis, Amsterdam officials are commissioning a study to determine why Moroccan men are targeting the city's gays.

I blame George Bush!

/ sarcasm off

wallyj: Stick around,you might actually find out that the stereotypes that you believe are actually just that.

LynnH: Therefore, it will probably fall upon conservatives, who value the rule of law, to protect the rights of gays and women.

The Phantom: Doesn't have a clue who Conservatives are or what they stand for

penny: Trust us, if you had followed our posts over time you would have found we haven't deviated from defending gays against Islam. News to you, pretty ordinary to us.

kursk: it is often left to conservatives to actually practice what leftists preach when it comes to enforcing human rights...

So where was the SDA coverage of, say, this event?:
- 3w.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2007/07/04/gay-bashing.html

Or this one?:

- 3w.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071201.wchandler1211/BNStory/National/home

Or this one?:

- 3w.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=4a68df9c-e220-4200-b209-dab7ea67f23c&k=25887

Oh right, none of those involved Muslims. Does anyone here honestly believe that if the story linked above by Kate involved non-Muslim attackers, that it still would have been blogged about? No, this has nothing to do with protecting the victims, and everything to do with demonizing the perpetrators. The end result may be the same--condemning the attacks--but the motivations are a world apart.

wallyj: Stick around,you might actually find out that the stereotypes that you believe are actually just that.

LynnH: Therefore, it will probably fall upon conservatives, who value the rule of law, to protect the rights of gays and women.

The Phantom: Doesn't have a clue who Conservatives are or what they stand for

penny: Trust us, if you had followed our posts over time you would have found we haven't deviated from defending gays against Islam. News to you, pretty ordinary to us.

kursk: it is often left to conservatives to actually practice what leftists preach when it comes to enforcing human rights...

So where was the SDA coverage of, say, this event:

- "Court hears gay bashing allegations" (CBC, 4 July 2007)

Or this one:

- "Alberta Tories oust candidate linked to anti-gay controversy" (Globe and Mail, 1 December 2007)

Or this one:

- "Canadian soldiers charged in alleged 'gay-bashing'" (National Post, 9 October 2007)

Oh right, none of those events involved Muslims. Does anyone here honestly believe that if the story linked above by Kate involved non-Muslim attackers, that it still would have been blogged about? No, this has nothing to do with protecting the victims, and everything to do with demonizing the perpetrators. The end result may be the same--condemning the attacks--but the motivations are a world apart.

I guess you missed the part where I'm not a news service. If you wish to link to items not covered in postings - (which reflect my interests, not yours) reader tips is as open to you as it is anyone else.

And so is blogger, for that matter. Knock yourself out.

I'm going to add this in response to your comment;

"Does anyone here honestly believe that if the story linked above by Kate involved non-Muslim attackers, that it still would have been blogged about?"

You're right. I wouldn't have blogged about it. I don't endorse so-called "hate" designations that devise a class system for victims of crime. The guy attacked by drunks outside a gay bar is no more worthy of elevation to special status than the innocent murdered on the street because some degenerate wants to know how it feels to kill someone.

But if you were a little more skilled at the nuts and bolts of reading comprehension, you'd realize this post has nothing to do with "gay bashing" and everything to do with the head exploding dilemma for the political left when their pathological devotion to political correctness and cultural relativism bounces hard on the rock hard road of Islamic intolerance.

So, if you have to, read it again.

Kate: I guess you missed the part where I'm not a news service.

Oh, I understand that perfectly. In fact, that was sort of my point -- that you'll only post about things that suit your interests. Which include documenting all the ways that Muslims are horrible, horrible people, but which doesn't include "protect the rights of gays and women." It's entirely your prerogative to blog about whatever you like; I don't begrudge you for it.

Anyway, my comment wasn't directed at you; it was directed at those readers who seem to think that what you're doing here is "actually practicing what leftists preach when it comes to enforcing human rights." I was just disabusing them of that flawed notion.

the head exploding dilemma for the political left when their pathological devotion to political correctness and cultural relativism bounces hard on the rock hard road of Islamic intolerance.

Well, I can't speak for everyone on the political left, but for me, it's not such a dilemma. See, some of us recognize that Muslims have been living in Amsterdam for quite a number of decades now, and never was there a major problem in the past with homophobic assaults. So, I'd suggest that chalking up this latest rash of violence to "Muslims and gays obviously can't get along" is rather a bit over-simplistic. It's unfortunate that you seem to think that any response short of that is automatically cultural relativism.

Doreen: ""Muslims and gays obviously can't get along" is rather a bit over-simplistic"

Can you complicate it?

So, Doreen, do you deny that there's a shocking amount of murderously violent anti-homosexual hatred within the Islamic community? Do you deny that homosexuals are regularly tortured and executed in the Islamic World, despite the fact that their very existence is denied by the Islamic theocratic regimes?

See, the Left doesn't want to acknowledge that the Islamic World is so horrendously hateful and violent towards homosexuals as well as women and many other groups that it makes the folks you prefer to hate and defame, the conservatives, Christians, Jews, America, Israel, etc., look like Care Bears and Teletubbies in comparison? And you, Doreen, are a member of the Left.

You write well, Doreen, but you're not having any impact. We aren't stupid. Are you?

Do you really think that perpetuating the Left's propaganda herein will make any difference whatsoever? Do you really believe that people are stupid enough to believe lies that contradict the truth that people can actually witness?

""Muslims and gays obviously can't get along" is rather a bit over-simplistic"

I agree insomuch as the truth is a little more pointed: every single theocracy governed by sharia executes homosexuals. Saudi, Iran, Sudan... you name it, such is the case.

Rephrasing the original, I would state it, "sharia and GBLT persons are not compatible," for there are Muslims who can get along with the GBLT community and mean them no harm. But these are Muslims who do not espouse sharia as the foundation for law and government.

The question is whether Islam can exist without sharia. That is, can Islam transform itself into a religion from a socio-political ideology?

It really is that simple and is not simplistic.

evryone should read the quran. it is evil. as are the hadiths and other writings and teachings of islam. the left are fools to think that islam will change or that they can benefit from appeasing it.

Oh, just one more point. Doreen provides examples of MSM reporting of alleged "gay-bashing" and "anti-gay controversy" as in MSM reports, but what about MSM reports about Muslim hate speech and violence against gays? In the Free World and in the non-Free and Islamic World?

That's my point: The MSM will not really, with any serious doggedness, go after Islamic homophobia, hate speech and violence, not even torture and murder, against gays and women.

Therefore, it is up to non-MSM news sites and blogs, like this one and mine, to let the people know what's going on that they're not being told about by the MSM.

And how come the Left, including the GLBT movement, still have yet to launch a massive, very well-funded, supported by the MSM and Hollywood and the Democratic Party/Liberal Party/NDP, etc., impossible-to-ignore, campaign against Islamic homophobia and gay-bashing? Oh, and also not against Islamic sexism and violence against women? Why? Why? Why?

Why? I'll tell you why: The Left doesn't really care about women and gays. I, however, cannot explain why the gay movement won't go after the homophobic Islamists of the world. It's currently beyond my ability to fathom.

The Left cares more about Communists and Islamists, their closest ideological brethren, than about women and gays. And gays seem to be too afraid of Muslim retaliation to dare to speak out against Islamic homophobia and gay-bashing. And they incredibly don't seem to care that the Left/MSM/Leftist political parties don't care to help them against Islamist anti-gay hate speech and violence.

Doreen: all I see here is another dogmatic socialist in morally superior drag.

I offer to fly two of your gay friends to any sharia law Islamic theocracy of your choice.... just to uncomplicate an uncomplicated self evident fact for you.

Doreen, what I said to rick_s (what is it with you people and capitalization anyway?) obviously goes for you too.

See, you don't understand the whole "free country" thing. In a free country gays are free to be as swishy as they want, and I'm free to disapprove if I want.

Truth is I don't really care, except when idiot agitators start in on idiot ideas like gay marriage. SSM isn't about being gay, its about affronting straights by disrespecting the traditions of marriage. Call me a cranky old bastard, but if somebody sets out to deliberately offend me it makes me irritable.

Note the subtle difference between writing irritated notes on the Internet and stomping the crap out of random gay men. I know its hard for you Lefties to grasp these nuances, but work with me.

Its none of my business what gays do. Its none of my business what Muslims do. Its none of their freaking business what -I- do. This is a free country, and it is this that I work toward in my small way.

M'kay?

'Doreen: ""Muslims and gays obviously can't get along" is rather a bit over-simplistic"

Can you complicate it?'

ural, I'm quite sure that Doreen wouldn't be able to explain this complicated situation to you. You're not sophisticated enough to understand the situation I'm sure.

I'll take my tongue out of my cheek now....

"Amsterdam officials are commissioning a study to determine why ..."

The only thing sure about this study will be the last line ... the one that says that they need more money to study this further.

Me: It's unfortunate that you seem to think that any response short of that is automatically cultural relativism.

Thanks for more or less confirming that, Canadian Sentinel ("The Left cares more about Communists and Islamists, their closest ideological brethren, than about women and gays"); WL Mackenzie Redux ("all I see here is another dogmatic socialist in morally superior drag"); The Phantom ("what is it with you people and capitalization anyway?"); and ural ("The only thing sure about this study will be the last line ... the one that says that they need more money to study this further").

Doreen, from your condescending claptrap it appears you're suffering from the destructive, debilitating disease called Leftoiditis.
It does tend to interfere with reasoned thought allowing for sensible, constructive debate.

In a free democracy, which we have, no one tells us what to think or programs us to follow any specific ideology. Most of us tend to mind our own affairs and obey the laws of the Land. We don't worry what any specific group gets up to if it's their personal choice and does not affect or threaten others in any untoward or dangerous way.
It cancels out the need for apologists.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!! Doreen, you're killing me! Ignore the serious part of the comment, and treat the joke part as serious?!

You ARE a moonbat! BWAHA!

ural: Can you complicate it?

Sure, I can try. You might not like what you hear though.

Here, in a nutshell, is my take on why "Muslims and gays obviously can't get along" is over-simplistic. In (small, dense) Amsterdam, Muslims (first mainly Indonesian and Surinamese, then Moroccan and Turkish) and the LGBT communities have been co-existing peacefully for decades. Hence, the claim that Islam and LGBT culture are inherently incompatible, that simply putting Muslims and gays in the same place would lead to homophobic violence, is demonstrably false.

Seems to me that something more recent is pushing some Muslims immigrant subgroups (often 2nd, 3rd generation) towards a radicalized version of Islam, and that it's this extreme ideological slant that compelling a subgroup of those subgroups to violence. So the question becomes: "Why now?" What, within the specific context of Amsterdam, is causing this? What's behind this recent radicalization? Mark Peters above is right that it's a dogmatic adherence to sharia that's largely at work here. So why more dogmatic adherence now, and not before?

Perhaps you'll point to Steyn and others, and say that it's because of higher levels of Muslim immigration and reproduction. But again, this doesn't explain why there was a lack of violence during previous waves of immigration from predominantly Muslim countries, only now. This isn't limited to Amsterdam, or Europe, either. People of Muslim faith have been living in the West for over a century now. People of Western nations have converted to Islam, to no harmful social effect. But only recently has radicalization become a serious concern. We need to understand what's driving this radicalization, rather than just point fingers at entire swaths of people.

And why the LGBT community specifically? Sure, they arguably manifest more loudly the sorts of liberal Western lifestyles that is so incompatible with Islamic fundamentalism. But this is 'free-wheelin' Amsterdam, where just about everybody flaunts their very liberal lifestyles. And it's also the case that gays and lesbians remain the relatively more vulnerable social groups, since even in Amsterdam, residual discrimination (by the dominant Dutch population) towards gays and lesbians still exists. So is this about one marginalized group preying on another (less) marginalized group?

Is this more complicated now? Or is the world still black and white?

So why are we involved in a conflict between the gay and muslim communites in Amsterdam?? I thought Holland was a place where blue eyed, blond haired boys and girls did it "the conventional way," save for the fact that they wore wooden shoes instead of Nikes.
I figured out where the gay movement began in the "Naderlens." Do you remember the story of the little boy who stuck his finger in the dike while they went and got a broom handle? Well guess what folks! That wasn't his finger........

"....Amsterdam officials are commissioning a study to determine why Moroccan men are targeting the city's gays."
Better give this job to the folks who are working on "why water is wet."
End of comment !

Muslim fags don't exist...that must be great for their health care system,we all know the risks of smoking.

Geez, doreen, it's simple:

They've got the numbers and the political will now. Before, they were small pockets in lands that wouldn't put up with their crap. Now, they're emboldened by their swelling numbers and a lack of opposition from those in power.

Toss in an imam or two that inflames the hatred of the community, and you have a powder keg of poorly-educated, tribalistic and violent young men.

The first target? The weakest. In this case, the GBLTT (you forgot Two Spirit, the latest ridiculous addition by the sex lobby). If they could get away with attacking the Dutch Proddies, they would -- but that's not in the cards right now.

So yeah, this is black and white, if you had read Art of War, that is. Because, dear, that's what this is. Make no mistake about it.

Zero sympathy from this cowboy!! You wanna be "unconventional," you pay the price. I don't go around publically advertising my intimate relations with my girlfriend, thus I don't get eggs in my windsheild.
You parade down the street dressed like a drag queen, you attract every whacko in the community. Tough tittie fag boy!!

Doreen,

Are you really that stupid? Why would there be a need for a study on why Muslims can't get along with Homosexuals if they've been getting along?

The media have done its best to try to deny Muslim hate and violence as have the politicians and the courts. It is now too obvious to ignore.

It's a fact that Muslims are the least tolerant people on earth towards Homosexuality, feminism and all the other tenants of liberal western democracy (including the democracy part.) That homosexuals and women who do not submit are killed by Muslim law in EVERY majority Muslim country is the most obvious illustration of this.

In Amsterdam, 80+ percent of rapes are Muslim men raping non-Muslim women. This is Muslim men asserting their dominance over women, over non-Muslims and over those who will not submit themselves to the dictates of their poisonous religion. There hasn't been a lot of media coverage though...

As for why it's getting worse now, there are many reasons. One is critical mass - more Muslims per capita creates a comfort zone. One is the degradation of the host identity and the vacuum that has created. One is the imported Saudi Mullahs inciting extremism and hate. One is the old adage of 'give an inch and they'll take a mile." They have progressively pushed the boundaries of what they can get away with and they have found their host nation to be weak. If the host culture would assert itself and its rights with force, the Muslims would be less likely to continue to push their limits.

It isn't rocket science.

As for your and others leftards claim that conservatives don't defend the rights of others, you won't find one of us who doesn't think that anyone who attacks or harms a homosexual should be punished to the full extent of the law in the same way as someone who attacks someone who isn't homosexual. The difference between a hypocrite leftard and a conservative is that the conservative doesn't think the attacker should get extra time in jail based on the demographics of the victim.

I can disagree with the politics of a group without wanting to extinguish the rights and liberties of that group. On the other hand, many libertarian leaning conservatives (like myself) have no problem with things like SSM. You lot demand rights but aren't willing to back them up.

Doreen,

There were no "previous waves of immigration." If you look at any western country's historical demographics, you'll notice that there were very few muslims living in Europe and the west, prior to the late 70's. At that time, part of the deal with Saudi Arabia and Opec was for the west to accept muslim immigration. The overwhelming majority of immigrant muslims started arriving in the 80's and most in the 90's, which coincided with the adaptation of multiculturalism and all the b.s. that entails.

"People of Muslim faith have been living in the West for over a century now. People of Western nations have converted to Islam, to no harmful social effect."

As stated, comparitively few muslims lived in the west prior to the 70's. Some muslim historians claim that they have been living here since the 19th century. There is proof of a few Arabs, etc living here, but not necessarily Muslims. Which makes sense since their religion requires a community to maintain. They do not generally immigrate to proselytize, especially not to predominately Christian nations. Where they would meet with abject failure.

As far as the statement, "to no harmful social effect," you've got to be joking. Ever heard of the Nation of Islam? How about their involvement in the zebra killings in S.F? How about Richard Reid, etc? How about their emphasis on conversion rates amongst hardened, violent criminals in all penal systems in the west? Recent converts are especially suseptible to radicalization.

"Recent" radicalization is due to two main things: The foundationally violent, imperialist and supremacist ideology of Islam as evidence shows in the Quran, Sira and Hadith. And oil money.

If you knew anything about Islam and its history you would know that "recent radicalization" is a bogus and dangerous claim. Islam has been a radical, violent ideology from its inception. Study Mohammad's life and sayings, then state your opinion. Otherwise your opinion is worthless, as it's based on nothing.

Rather than pointing fingers at "entire swaths of people," perhaps you might try pointing your finger where it should be pointed, at the ideology. That is the dangerous, driving force behind all of the violence.

It is not about "one marginalised group preying on another marginalized group." It is about adherents of one supremacist and imperialist political ideology preying on everybody else. Including themselves, from sect to sect.

You are ignorant of the actual historical facts and the impetus found in what is said, commanded and rewarded in the trilogy of Islamic texts.

The Quran, Sira (biography of Mo) and Hadith (actions and sayings of Mo) must be taken as a whole. For example, the Quran cannot exist without the others, because it is only given context by the other texts. Otherwise it has no context and makes no sense. As well, solely based on the Quran, Islam cannot have its most important five pillars of belief, because the description of these pillars only exist in the other texts. These texts are what have always, up to the present, driven Islamic attrocities.

The history of political Islam began with the destruction of Christianity in the Middle East, Egypt, Turkey and North Africa. Half of Christianity was lost. Before Islam, North Africa was the southern part of Europe (part of the Roman Empire). Around 60 million Christians were slaughtered during the jihadic conquest.

Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed.

The first Western Buddhists were the Greeks descended from Alexander the Great’s army in what is now Afghanistan. Jihad destroyed all of Buddhism along the silk route. About 10 million Buddhists died. The conquest of Buddhism is the practical result of pacifism.

Zoarasterianism was eliminated from Persia.

The Jews became permanent dhimmis throughout Islam.

In Africa over 120 million Christians and animists have died over the last 1400 years of jihad.

Approximately 270 million nonbelievers died over the last 1400 years for the glory of political Islam.

Western ignorance of Islam, like you so ably display, is the most dangerous thing we face.

(Sira) Ishaq:587: "Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."

By the way Doreen, how do you explain the fact that there aren't roving bands of Chinese, or blacks, or Dutch, or name-your-group running around beating up gays in Amsterdam? Just Muslims.

Could it be as simple as the local imams jacking up the young and the stupid to go bash a few fags for their own political ends?

Naw, that could never happen right?

Hmmmm...

Has anyone here,when they put aside their boring left vs right bullshit,stopped to consider why this muslim gay-bashing is a large problem in only certain pockets?

I tire of the muslim = evil mentalitity of so many posters here.
Neither of the two muslims I have gotten to know in this country have a mean bone in their body.I find it quite sad and ironic that as an athiest amongst a group of christians I should have to feel compelled to defend a religion.

I would put forth the theory the problem exists in areas as this because of the influence and hateful teachings of RADICAL Imams in particular mosques.

Sorry,Phantom...

I missed the fact you already made most of my point.

teddy,

Read the posts to Doreen. They apply to you as well. An opinion is worthless unless you have evidence and you have none. Maintaining two nice Muslim friends is meaningless. We all have nice Muslim friends.

Once again, read Mohammad's words in the Quran, and his actions and words in the Sira and the Hadith.

Mr Wilders’s contribution to the Dutch parliamentary debate on Islamic activism:

zaterdag 29 september 2007
Thursday, 6 September 2007

Madam Speaker, allow me, first, to express my sincere thanks to you personally for having planned a debate on Islam on the very day of my birthday. I could not have wished for a nicer present!
Madam Speaker, approximately 1400 years ago war was declared on us by an ideology of hate and violence which arose at the time and was proclaimed by a barbarian who called himself the Prophet Mohammed. I am referring to Islam.

Madam Speaker, let me start with the foundation of the Islamic faith, the Koran. The Koran’s core theme is about the duty of all Muslims to fight non-Muslims; an Islamic Mein Kampf, in which fight means war, jihad. The Koran is above all a book of war – a call to butcher non-Muslims (2:191, 3:141, 4:91, 5:3), to roast them (4:56, 69:30-69:32), and to cause bloodbaths amongst them (47:4). Jews are compared to monkeys and pigs (2:65, 5:60, 7:166), while people who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God must according to the Koran be fought (9:30).

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that there are people who call themselves Muslims and who respect our laws. My party, the Freedom Party, has nothing against such people, of course. However, the Koran does have something against them. For it is stated in the Koran in Sura 2, verse 85, that those believers who do not believe in everything the Koran states will be humiliated and receive the severest punishment; which means that they will roast in Hell. In other words, people who call themselves Muslims but who do not believe, for example, in Sura 9, verse 30, which states that Jews and Christians must be fought, or, for example, in Sura 5, verse 38, which states that the hand of a thief must be cut off, such people will be humiliated and roast in Hell. Note that it is not me who is making this up. All this can be found in the Koran. The Koran also states that Muslims who believe in only part of the Koran are in fact apostates, and we know what has to happen to apostates. They have to be killed.

Madam Speaker, the Koran is a book that incites to violence. I remind the House that the distribution of such texts is unlawful according to Article 132 of our Penal Code. In addition, the Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem. The distribution of such texts is made punishable by Article 137(e). The Koran is therefore a highly dangerous book; a book which is completely against our legal order and our democratic institutions. In this light, it is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state. I shall propose a second-reading motion to that effect.

Read the whole speech:
geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1214&Itemid=101

No worries Teddy. I'm used to being misunderstood. ~:D

Your point is well taken. There are a few evil Muslims, just like there's a few evil every-other-type people.

What's unique in this Amsterdam case is the few evil Muslims are getting a free pass from the Powers That Be, whereas all the other evil types are getting their necks stepped on like one would expect.

We have the same thing here in Ontario. Other-than-white gang bangers in Toronto get the hands-off treatment, senior citizens dumb enough to obey the gun laws have the cops 'round to root through their cupboards.

I find this unreasonable. For some reason, Doreen and company think that makes me some kind of troglodyte. Like I said, I'm used to being misunderstood.

If only Muslim gun owners were being inspected, maybe that would alarm Doreen?

Where's the evidence that the gay bashers are Muslims or Moroccan? Has anyone seen the court transcripts? Given the choice between Moroccan Muslims and fags, I'd take the Moroccans!! Do you not believe that Nazi skinheads could be the problem here!! Wake up guys!!

The Phantom: Other-than-white gang bangers in Toronto get the hands-off treatment

Are you kidding?! The Malvern Crew? Arrested. Galloway Boys? Arrested. Ardwick Blood Crew? Arrested. Jamestown Crew? Arrested. Driftwood Crips? Arrested.

For someone who takes such pride in being critical and skeptical of the MSM, you sure sound like you get your ideas about gangs in Toronto straight from the 6 o'clock news.

teddy: I would put forth the theory the problem exists in areas as this because of the influence and hateful teachings of RADICAL Imams in particular mosques.

I agree with you, teddy. I'd add that it's also worth asking what factors (a) have created the conditions that enable radical imams to emerge and thrive, and (b) are leading young Muslim men to gravitate towards these messages of extremism and intolerance.

The Phantom thinks it's because leftist Powers That Be are giving them both a free pass. That political correctness is definitely a part of it. But I think there's more to it than that--if you constantly push someone down, eventually they push back.

Phantom, to answer your question of why there aren't roving bands of Chinese, or blacks, or Dutch, or name-your-group running around beating up gays in Amsterdam, I'd point out that Dutch social attitudes towards various immigrant communities vary quite a bit. The Chinese community in Amsterdam is small but respected. While things were rocky at the beginning, they've been around for a while now, and attitudes towards them have softened. Ditto the bigger Indonesian and Surinamese, who're also viewed well, due largely to colonial historical reasons. Moroccan and Turkish groups, however, were brought in most recently to fill a demand for cheap labour. And we all know how well societies everywhere treat their bottom-rung workers.

Also, a couple of Canadian soldiers stationed in Amsterdam were recently arrested for assaulting a gay local. Care to make any generalizations about Canadian soldiers' intolerance of others based on that? I should think not.

irwin daisy: Maintaining two nice Muslim friends is meaningless. We all have nice Muslim friends.

So what's the difference between your nice Muslim friends and the evil Muslim extremists? Presumably they've both read the same Quran, Sira, and Hadith. Presumably both would self-identify as practitioners of Islam. Why do you think one group has gone one way, and the other group, another way? It'd be rather dismissive and offensive to suggest that the nice ones are simply apostates. Might it instead be possible to say that multiple strains of Islam exist, and then ask why some people choose one strain, and others choose another?

I think if we can figure that out, we can stem the radicalization trend without alienating all Muslims in blunt, wholesale fashion. Is that a possible future that you'd be interested in?

They have a problem with cigarettes??

I think if we can figure that out, we can stem the radicalization trend without alienating all Muslims in blunt, wholesale fashion. Is that a possible future that you'd be interested in?

Me think too hard, so no. Blanket generalization easier. Nuance make brain hurt.

Dear Mr./Ms/transgendered other "The Phantom's scared of black people".

I'm sorry, its just that there's been 80 shootings this year, mostly of other-than-White victims, so I just thought that, gee, are these poor victims all being shot by the KKK? Nuh uh, because THAT would have been on the news. It fits their template.

No my amusing friend, mostly we have black kids getting shot with pistols by other blacks, mostly in gangs. Pistols have been registered since 1932, y'know. One goes missing, they know where it came from.

Where are the cops banging on doors? Old white people's houses. Because that is much more politically acceptable than banging on the doors of known gang bangers and tossing the place to find guns. There's no fire breathing Senior Citizen Gun Owners Association ready to show up on the front page of the Toronto (Red) Star. Safer too, old white men are less likely to shoot the cops. As in, MUCH less likely.

This is logic similar to looking under the streetlight for your keys because other people can see you better than in the ditch where the keys actually are. Finding the keys doesn't matter, its being seen looking that's important.

In Amsterdam we have the geniuses in city council doing a study to find out something blisteringly obvious. Looking for their keys under the streetlight again.

For whatever convoluted, asinine reason, it is easier to do a study than it is to admit that certain Imams find it politically expedient to encourage gay bashing among their young and stupid male audience.

This indicates two things to me. First, the Amsterdam city council cares not a tinker's damn for the gay men in their town, and second they don't care much for the rule of law either.

Because if they gave a rat's ass about either, there'd be a couple of Imams on the Cherry Beach Express. Know what I mean?

All Islamic sects are joined by the same texts. The texts say in no uncertain terms how to be a good Muslim. The clerics all preach from the same texts.

Now, how about the Nazis? Certainly there were good Germans, yet the whole country started and waged war. Did all Germans believe in and follow to a t, Mein Kampf?

My argument is not against Muslims in general. It is against the texts that join them and inspire perpetual hatred and murder.

Doreen, with the many monikers you're using here, you ought to seek help. You're sounding like a psychopath. Perhaps you should use the name Sybil?

"An opinion is worthless unless you have evidence and you have none."

No mr.daisy,that is not correct at all.

Your problem is that you can only rationalize information by compartmentalizing it into your preconceived notions and bigotries.
I have over 40 yrs experience in business dealing with individuals of all sorts of backgrounds,and have thus learned some universal truths about the human condition.

Here is a basic FACT OF LIFE that you are obviously too biased and entrenched in your thinking to realize on your own.

Try and follow along please....
There are good muslims...there are evil muslims.
There are honest policemen...there are dishonest policeman.
There are honorable bakers...there are dishonorable bakers.
There are salesmen with integrity...there are salesmen with none whatsoever.
There are trustworthy Jews...there are untrustworthy Jews.
There are ethical lawyers...there are unethical lawyers.

See a pattern yet?

The mere fact I know two good muslims proves you to be wrong,wrong,wrong.

You are simply a bigot.But then,while I have known many many fair-minded christians in my day,I have met my share of hateful ones too.

The sheer stupidity and wilful gross ignorance of the Left evident in the comments of Leftists in this thread is just mind-boggling.

I cannot fathom how Leftists can possibly genuinely believe that JudeoChristians are a threat to their rights but radical Islam isn't.

I mean, it is JudeoChristianity that actually gave us Free Worlders our rights! In fact, America, the beacon of liberty in the world, was founded and constituted on the basis of Christian principles. This is where the rights of Americans come from. And the Free World is similarly founded on JudeoChristian principles.... NOT on Islamic principles (like the Islamic theocracies, where NO ONE has any rights at all, particularly women, plus homosexuals are regarded as good as dead by such theocracies).

Utterly, totally mind-boggling, the Left is!

It just proves that liberalism/progressivism/leftism is a mental disorder. I have zero doubt. Clearly their minds are terribly disordered.